elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: an examination of...
Post on 25-Aug-2016
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Scienceand Classroom Practice: An Examination of Pre/PostNCLB Testing in Science
Andrea R. Milner • Toni A. Sondergeld •
Abdulkadir Demir • Carla C. Johnson •
Charlene M. Czerniak
Published online: 25 March 2011
� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2011
Abstract The impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandated state science
assessment on elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching science and their class-
room practice is relatively unknown. For many years, the teaching of science has
been minimized in elementary schools in favor of more emphasis on reading and
mathematics. This study examines the dynamics of bringing science to the forefront
of assessment in elementary schools and the resulting teacher belief and instruc-
tional shifts that take place in response to NCLB. Results indicated that teachers’
beliefs about teaching science remained unchanged despite policy changes man-
dated in NCLB. Teacher beliefs related to their perceptions of what their admin-
istrators and peer groups’ think they should be doing influenced their practice the
most. Most teachers reported positive feelings and attitudes about science and
reported that their students had positive feelings and attitudes about science;
A. R. Milner (&)
Adrian College, Adrian, MI 49221, USA
e-mail: amilner@adrian.edu
T. A. Sondergeld
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA
e-mail: tsonder@bgsu.edu
A. Demir
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA
e-mail: kadir@gsu.edu
C. C. Johnson
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
e-mail: Johnsc2@ucmail.uc.edu
C. M. Czerniak
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA
e-mail: charlene.czerniak@utoledo.edu
123
J Sci Teacher Educ (2012) 23:111–132
DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9230-7
however, teachers reported teaching science less as a result of NCLB. Implications
for elementary science education reform and policy are discussed.
Restructuring Science Education Nationally
In response to the realization that other nations have surpassed the U.S. in inno-
vative scientific and technological discovery and potentially economic prosperity,
public decision-makers have lobbied to make science and mathematics education a
top priority (The Obama-Biden Plan 2009). Paralleling the suggestions put forth in
Rising Above the Gathering Storm (CSEPP 2007), national leaders in education and
government have developed priorities for science education. Over the last decade,
these national priorities have evolved from influential policy reports demanding
comprehensive changes in science teaching and learning. Several of these reports
include Project 2061 developed by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989), the National Science Education
Standards developed by the National Research Council and Academy of Science
(NAP 1996), and America 2000 (1991) developed by a committee of the nation’s
governors. Together, the recommendations aim to prepare a scientifically literate
national work force that is prepared to compete in an increasingly scientifically and
technologically oriented global economy.
More recently, the Carnegie Foundation report entitled Opportunity Equation(2009) recommends focusing on four priority areas: (1) higher levels of
mathematics and science learning for all American students; (2) common standards
in mathematics and science that are fewer, clearer, and higher coupled with aligned
assessments; (3) improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better
school and system management; and (4) new designs for schools and systems to
deliver mathematics and science learning more effectively. The current U.S.
Presidential administration has also proposed a plan that prioritizes mathematics and
science instruction in the attempt to prepare young citizens to be active members of
a technologically-dependent society (The Obama-Biden Plan 2009). The Plan ForLifetime Success Through Education seeks to reform the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education 2002), however that will take
some time to accomplish. In the meantime states, schools, and teachers must
strategically work within the confines of this policy to deliver the highest quality
education possible to this nation’s youngest citizens.
NCLB is a federal act that mandates school accountability in its provision of
federal funds (Mahoney and Zigler 2006). Its primary mission is to eliminate the
gaps in academic achievement that are a result of educational inequities due to
social status (Marx and Harris 2006). NCLB relies on large-scale testing (Neil
2003), and when it was first enacted, only mathematics and reading were among
those subject areas tested. However, in the Spring of 2007, science and social
studies were added to the testing requirement, thus leading to many potential
consequences for the design of the science curriculum, and more importantly, the
instructional delivery of science in classrooms across the nation (Johnson 2007a).
112 A. R. Milner et al.
123
Restructuring Science Education Locally
Ironically, despite the good intentions of reforming science education at the national
level, the success of reforms is dependent on the changes that occur at the classroom
level (Anderson and Helms 2001; Johnson et al. 2007). Change in science teaching
practice requires support of local administration and is most effective when a
critical mass of teachers within the school are on board (Anderson and Helms 2001;
Berns and Swanson 2000; Johnson 2009). External supports for teachers overall,
such as resources, preparation time, and administrative support to teach science are
rare (Berns and Swanson 2000). It has been well-documented in the research
literature that elementary teachers lack the content knowledge and, subsequently,
the confidence to teach science effectively to their students (Crawford 2000; Keys
and Bryan 2000; Weiss 1978, 1987; Weiss and Place 1978). Supovitz and Turner
(2000) found that individual teachers’ content knowledge has a ‘‘powerful
influences on teachers’ uses of inquiry-based practices and investigative classroom
culture’’ (p. 976). Murphy et al. (2007) used a mixed-methods research design to
explore some of the key issues hindering the progress of science education. They
found that the major issue elementary teachers face is the lack of ability and
confidence to teach science. Additionally, research on teacher’s beliefs suggests a
strong relationship between beliefs and classroom practices.
The Role of Teachers’ Beliefs on Classroom Practice
Teachers’ beliefs can be described as their convictions, philosophy, tenants, or
opinions about teaching and learning. Both prospective and inservice teachers have
developed their beliefs about teaching from two primary extensive experiences;
namely, the years spent in the classroom as both students and teachers (Perry 1990).
Disconcertingly, the beliefs of teachers are not necessarily consistent with the
literature about best practice in teaching (Battista 1994; Fetters et al. 2002; Haney
et al. 1996). Moreover, teachers’ beliefs appear to be stable and resistant to change
(Kagan 1992; Lumpe et al. 2000). Additionally, teachers’ perceived lack of support
from colleagues and principals have a significant effect on their beliefs (Friedman
2003; Johnson 2007b). Consequently, problems may arise if classroom teachers and
their beliefs about reform are ignored and thus, teacher self-efficacy and belief
structure should be directly addressed (Fetters et al. 2002; Haney et al. 2002, 2003;
Marshall et al. 2009). The Rand Change Agent Study conducted from 1973 to 1978
reported that effective change and program implementation depended more upon
local factors than ‘‘top down’’ methods (McLaughlin 1990). McLaughlin (1987)
indicated, ‘‘What actually is delivered or provided under the aegis of a policy
depends finally on the individual at the end of the line’’ (p. 174). Specifically to
science education, Clark and Peterson (1985) claim that teachers and their beliefs
may play a major role in science education reform since teachers’ beliefs lead to
actions and these actions impact students. This critical relationship between the
beliefs of teachers regarding implementation of reform efforts and instructional
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 113
123
decisions is well documented (Crawley and Salyer 1995; Johnson 2006; Haney et al.
1996).
According to Bandura (1986), beliefs are thought to be the best indicators of the
decisions people make throughout their lives. Yet, beliefs are often confused with
other related concepts such as attitudes, values, judgments, concepts, and
dispositions. Pajares (1992) explained that clusters of beliefs around a particular
situation form attitudes, and attitudes become action agendas that guide decisions
and behavior. In other words, people act upon what they believe. The connections
among clusters of beliefs create an individual’s values that guide one’s life and
ultimately determine behavior (Ajzen 1985). Teachers possess beliefs regarding
professional practice. Since their beliefs may impact their actions, teachers’ beliefs
play a critical role in paving restructuring science education.
Theory of Planned Behavior
Several research models have been employed to examine human beliefs because of
the growing interest in the role of peoples’ beliefs and their relationship to behavior.
Specifically, Ajzen and Madden’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1986) was
effective in identifying belief factors influencing intention and behavior. The TPB
consists of direct measures of three constructs: attitude toward the behavior (ABD),
subjective norm (SND), and perceived behavioral control (PBCD) (see Fig. 1).
Attitude toward the behavior (AB) encompasses the beliefs about the
consequences of performing a particular behavior and the evaluations of those
consequences. In other words, the AB represents a personal dimension. Subjective
norm (SN) represents a social dimension regarding an individual’s belief about the
extent to which other people, important to his/her life, think the behavior should be
performed. Perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to beliefs regarding the
existence of both resources and obstacles related to engaging in the behavior
(Crawley and Koballa 1992).
Theory of Planned Behavior
Salient Beliefs
Salient Beliefs
Salient Beliefs
Attitude toward the Behavior ABD
Subjective Norm SND
Perceived Behavioral Control PBCD
Behavioral Intent BI
BehaviorB
Fig. 1 Theory of planned behavior
114 A. R. Milner et al.
123
Together, the attitude toward behavior (AB), subjective norm (SN), and perceived
behavioral control (PBC) constructs theoretically influence a persons’ intent to
engage in a particular target behavior; called behavioral intention (BI). In turn,
behavioral intention directly influences a persons’ actions or behavior (B), and
salient beliefs and the evaluations of those beliefs influence a persons’ ABD (direct
measure of attitude toward behavior), SND (direct measure of subjective norm), and
PBCD (direct measure of perceived behavioral control). The salient beliefs represent
a collection of the specific AB, SN, and PBC beliefs about the target behavior, thus,
they produce indirect measures of the three constructs (ABI, SNI and PBCI).
Ultimately, the Theory of Planned Behavior links a persons’ behavior to attitudes,
social support, and beliefs about both internal and external control factors. The
Theory of Planned Behavior is a theoretical model that is causal and unidirectional.
As a model of human behavior, a person’s behavior is influenced by his/her salient
beliefs and his/her salient beliefs are influenced by experiences; in other words,
people learn from their experiences. Both social science researchers and science
educators have used the Theory of Planned Behavior to trace the relationship of
beliefs and intention (see Crawley and Koballa 1992; and Koballa and Crawley 1992
for an extensive review of this research). However, few studies used the Theory of
Planned Behavior to examine the beliefs and intentions of science teachers with
regard to reform efforts (See Crawley 1990 and Haney et al. 1996 as exceptions).
Need for This Study
Science is now a critical, high stakes subject under NCLB. Therefore, it is important
that research emerge from the field to compare elementary science teachers’ beliefs
and behavior prior to and after the change in testing requirements. Since NCLB was
in effect for 7 years prior to adding science as a component, it is feasible to conduct
studies that compare elementary science teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices
before and after the science assessment portion of NCLB was implemented.
For the first few years after the implementation of NCLB, schools and teachers
directed most of their energy and resources toward mathematics and reading
instruction, while science was positioned as a lesser priority (Johnson 2007a; Keeley
2009). Griffith and Scharmann (2008) found that elementary teachers, in fact, cut
time from science instruction as a result of NCLB in favor of increased time for
mathematics and reading instruction. A recent study found that the NCLB law lifted
math scores (Zehr 2009), but we know little about the impact on science teaching.
Therefore, there is a necessity for the gap in the literature to be filled with
contemporary research that focuses on if and how elementary teachers’ beliefs about
teaching science have changed as a result of the NCLB science assessment changes.
Additionally, the pressure on teachers to yield high test scores encourages them
to prioritize fact memorization and drill-and-practice routines at the expense of
standards-based instruction (Anderson 2007). These rote instructional methods lead
to a lesser degree of conceptual understanding than the latter strategy (Panijpan
et al. 2008). Thus, there is a need to explore changes in classroom practices before
and after the implementation of science testing in NCLB.
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 115
123
Purpose of This Study
The research base has demonstrated that the quality and quantity of elementary
science instruction students in the U.S. receive is lacking (Banilower et al. 2007).
The purpose of this study is to explore the dynamics that impact teacher practice in
elementary science, including teacher beliefs, perceptions, and challenges pre- and
post-NCLB required state science testing. This paper examined four primary
research questions:
(1) What are elementary teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLB
science testing requirement) concerning their science teaching?
(2) Do elementary teachers’ belief-based affects influence their intent to teach
science in their own classrooms (both before and after NCLB state science
testing requirements)?
(3) Do elementary teachers believe NCLB required science testing has impacted
their science teaching? If yes, how?
(4) What influence did NCLB required science testing have on elementary
teacher’s classroom practices?
Methodology
Instrumentation
Over the last decade, using a mixed methods approach to educational research for
the purpose of answering research questions has gained credibility and popularity
(Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). There are many cited advantages to using mixed
methods design, such as: strengths of quantitative offset the weakness of qualitative
and vice versa; use of all tools for data collection helps answer research questions
that cannot be answered alone with one approach; researchers often collaborate
more and use multiple worldviews or paradigms; and it is a practical approach to
understanding phenomena with both numbers and words (Creswell and Clark 2007).
For this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a survey
of practicing teachers’ beliefs about their elementary science teaching pre-required
state science testing and post-required state science testing. Open-ended questions
were included on the survey and analyzed qualitatively. To add depth to the
understanding of teachers’ beliefs about their elementary science teaching and
classroom practices, a small sample of survey respondents were contacted for
further phone interviews after the surveys were collected.
Questionnaire
Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) technique was used to develop the standard
questionnaire to assess the subjects’ salient beliefs related to participating in a
given target behavior. This technique required an initial sample of elementary
teachers to answer open-ended questions regarding their beliefs about teaching
116 A. R. Milner et al.
123
science in their classrooms. As part of the open-ended questionnaire, the elementary
teachers were asked to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of teaching
science in their classrooms (representing the attitude toward behavior construct),
their beliefs about who might approve or disapprove of teaching science in their
classrooms (representing the subjective norm construct), and what things would
encourage or discourage them from teaching science in their classrooms
(representing the perceived behavioral control construct). The information gathered
from these open response questions were compiled and content analyzed resulting in
a list of salient beliefs about teaching science in their classrooms (see Table 1).
These salient beliefs were used to construct five point, bipolar semantic
differential items. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), only those salient
beliefs representing a majority of beliefs (75% of teachers) are to be selected for
questionnaire item construction. These semantic differential items comprised the
indirect measures of the three major constructs: attitude toward the behavior (ABI),
Table 1 Salient beliefs of teaching science as listed by elementary teachers
Advantages Disadvantages
Meeting the science standards Taking lots of time to prepare for class
Making learning fun and enjoyable for students Having inadequate materials and equipment
Teaching problem solving about the real world Having nonexistent curriculum
Covering other subject areas while teaching science The school not emphasizing science
Doing hands-on inquiry Experiencing classroom management issues
Motivating the students
Approve Disapprove
My principal My principal
Students School district administration
Other teachers
School district administration
Parents
People from organizations such as zoo, science museum
Encourage Discourage
More time to prepare lessons State pressure to teach/test
reading and math
More time to teach
A teaching assistant (to prepare kits, set up materials,
help work with small groups, etc.)
Having available supplies & equipment
A textbook
Less state pressure to teach reading and math
Professional development in science
A science resource specialist to help me
Tradebooks and other children’s literature focusing on science topics
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 117
123
subjective norm (SNI), and perceived behavioral control (PBCI). Based on the
Theory of Planned Behavior, the salient beliefs were combined according to the
linear equation described by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to form indirect measures.
Reliability indices for the indirect measures, direct measures, and measure of
behavioral intent were all calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency
coefficient. Indirect measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control scales all showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (ABI = .67;
SNI = .82; PBCI = .71). Reliability indices for the direct attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control scales were as follows: ABD = .85; SND = .63;
PBCD = .32. The Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency for behavioral intent
was .83. With the exception of PBCD, all constructs in the model showed
acceptable levels of internal consistency.
Validity evidence of the scales for the indirect and direct measures of the Theory
of Planned Behavior can be inferred from several sources. Content validity evidence
can be presumed for the indirect measures because the salient beliefs emerged from
teachers’ own responses to the open-ended questions. Construct validity evidence is
questionable since significant correlations existed between the direct measures of
the theory constructs and behavioral intention as indicated in the Theory of Planned
Behavior (except post-PBCD), yet few significant correlations existed between
indirect and direct measures (see Fig. 2).
Open-Ended Questions
Open-ended questions were included at the end of the Elementary Science Teaching
Questionnaire. These questions attempted to draw out more in depth information on
teachers’ perceptions of effective science teaching, their ability to teach effectively,
their perceived impacts of NCLB on science teaching, their confidence in teaching
science, and beliefs about their teacher preparation to teach science. All participants
Path Model for Pre- and Post-Survey
ABI
SNI
PBCI
ABD
SND
PBCD
BI B
.027
.025
.452**
.301
.052
.062
.232***
.315***
.258***
.417***
.166***
.124
Fig. 2 Path model for pre- and post-survey. Note: Post-survey results indicated with italics. ***p \ .001
118 A. R. Milner et al.
123
who completed the questionnaire were given the chance to complete the open-ended
questions as well regardless of survey administration time.
Telephone Interviews
The Theory of Planned Behavior (and quantitative questionnaire described above) is
a predictive model that examines the relationships between salient beliefs and intentto engage in a certain behavior (in this study the intended behavior was teaching
science in elementary classrooms). The quantitative questionnaire does not examine
actual behavior. Thus, we used a telephone interview protocol to obtain a sense of
actual classroom science teaching in the week of or prior to the interviews.
The research team developed the phone interview protocol. Phone interviews
were semi-structured and consisted of 19 questions. Fourteen of the questions asked
focused directly on a science topic the teacher had taught in the week of or prior to
the interview. The remaining 5 questions focused on the perceived impact of NCLB
on the elementary teacher’s science instruction. The interviews were an essential
source of information (Yin 2003) as they focused on the specific experiences and
perceptions of the teachers involved in this study (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003).
Participants
Questionnaire
To solicit the salient beliefs from a representative sample of elementary teachers
(which would be used to construct the Elementary Science Teaching Questionnaire),
we had 44 teachers completed the open ended survey of beliefs. The Elementary
Science Teaching Questionnaire was administered to a randomly selected national
sample of elementary school teachers obtained from the National Registry of
Teachers (which includes all teachers in the nation) from the National Science
Teacher Association once before the required NCLB testing in science (December
2006) and again after the required NCLB testing in science (December 2007). In
each administration, a random sample of 7,500 teachers was selected to receive the
questionnaire. The sample was randomly selected and stratified based on the
population of each state.
Teachers were mailed the survey and asked to complete then return it in an
enclosed pre-paid postage envelope. A post card reminder went out to all potential
participants after 3 weeks asking them to complete and return the survey if they had
not already done so. Although the researchers intended for this to be a randomly
selected sample of all elementary teachers nationally, due to the non-response of
many potential participants the limitations of a convenience sample must be noted.
A good number of teachers surveyed returned the survey or sent an email indicating
that they do not teach science, which, in hindsight, we believe is a problem when
sampling elementary teachers who either do not view themselves as science teachers
or who make informal agreements with peers to teach some subject areas leaving
science to be taught by another teacher in the building. While our response rates are
low, direct mail survey response rates are rarely over 30% (Alreck and Settle 2004),
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 119
123
and research has documented a trend of decreasing response rates to traditional mail
surveys since the early 1960s (Dey 1997).
In comparing the demographics from the pre-survey to the post-survey sample,
Table 2 indicates the groups, although largely different in size, were highly similar
with regard to relevant demographics. Both samples were comprised of mostly
White female teachers fairly evenly distributed across grade level taught.
Phone Interviews
Survey participants who responded to the questionnaire prior to the required state
science testing had the opportunity to further volunteer to be contacted by the
researchers about their science teaching beliefs. All teachers who volunteered for
this were initially contacted (n = 171), and 22 of them were available and willing to
speak with researchers for a brief 20–30 min interview. Limited demographic
information was collected from these participants. From the 22 elementary school
teachers interviewed, the vast majority was female (91%; n = 20). These
elementary teachers interviewed were largely from public schools (86%, n = 15),
followed by private/independent (18%, n = 4), and Catholic (14%, n = 3). The
grade levels taught ranged from Kindergarten to 5th grade with the majority teaching
at the early childhood level of K-3 (59%; n = 13) and fewer teaching in the middle
grades—4th and 5th—of an elementary school (41%; n = 9).
Results
RQ1: What are science teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLBscience testing requirement) concerning their elementary science teaching?
Many of the advantages for teaching science listed by the elementary teachers
focused on making science interesting and relevant for the students as well as
meeting the science standards (see Table 1). Some teachers were concerned about
the time it takes to prepare for science teaching and the inadequate access to
materials and supplies. They were also concerned about classroom management
issues. The approving and disapproving groups of people include many of the
groups who commonly interface with schools. It was interesting to note that
teachers believed people from organizations such as the zoo and science museum
would approve. Some teachers indicated available resources (funding, curriculum
materials, supplies and equipment, etc.) and staff development opportunities
would encourage them teach science. Others stressed the importance of a science
support specialist and teaching assistant who could help them prepare kits, set up
materials, and work with small groups of students). Finally, a number of teachers
felt that state pressures to teach mathematics and reading discouraged the teaching
of science.
Descriptive statistics for the pre- and post-survey model variables were very
similar and can be viewed in Table 3. On average, the teachers held positive beliefs
concerning attitude and subjective norm (ABI and SNI). A moderately positive
120 A. R. Milner et al.
123
Table 2 Pre- and post-survey participant demographics
Demographic Pre-survey sample Post-survey sample
Randomly selected sample 100% (N = 7,500) 100% (N = 7,500)
Response rate 6.7% (n = 502) 2.3% (n = 170)
Ethnicity
Black 3.8% (n = 19) 2.9% (n = 5)
Hispanic 3.4% (n = 17) 2.9% (n = 5)
Other 2.8% (n = 14) 2.9% (n = 5)
White 89.2% (n = 448) 88.2% (n = 150)
Not identified .8% (n = 4) 2.9% (n = 5)
Gender
Female 87.1% (n = 437) 87.6% (n = 149)
Male 10.0% (n = 50) 8.2% (n = 14)
Not identified 3.0% (n = 15) 4.1% (n = 7)
Years teaching experience
Lowest 2.0 years 1.0 year
Highest 46.0 years 40.0 years
Mean 16.6 years 17.8 years
Median 15.0 years 17.0 years
SD 10.0 years 9.7 years
Not identified 6.6% (n = 33) 14.1% (n = 24)
Number of days/week teach sci
0–1 Days 7.2% (n = 36) 8.9% (n = 15)
2–3 Days 38.4% (n = 193) 34.1% (n = 58)
4–5 Days 51.4% (n = 258) 50.1% (n = 85)
5 Days 3.0% (n = 15) 7.0% (n = 12)
Not identified
Current grade teaching
Pre-K-3rd 52.2% (n = 262) 47.1% (n = 80)
4th-5th 27.7% (n = 139) 29.4% (n = 50)
6th-7th 20.1% (n = 101) 5.3% (n = 9)
Not identified 0.0% (n = 0) 18.2% (n = 31)
District location
Urban 17.5% (n = 88) 27.1% (n = 46)
Suburban 35.9% (n = 180) 25.9% (n = 44)
Rural 40.6% (n = 204) 37.6% (n = 64)
Not identified 6.0% (n = 30) 9.4% (n = 16)
Highest degree obtained
Bachelor’s 48.2% (n = 242) 39.4% (n = 67)
Masters 44.4% (n = 223) 54.7% (n = 93)
Specialist/Ph.D. 3.2% (n = 16) 0.6% (n = 1)
Not identified 4.2% (n = 21) 5.3% (n = 9)
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 121
123
mean (compared to the possible maximum score) for perceived behavioral control
(PBCI) indicates that the teachers did not feel overly confident that specific external
control factors such as supplies, equipment, and time will be available to assist them
with their science instruction. Elementary teachers’ direct attitude toward teaching
science (ABD) was high. The average direct subjective norm (SND) was high as
well indicating that the average teacher felt there was a high likelihood that other
people would influence their teaching science. Although the teachers were not very
confident that they would be able to easily teach science in their own classrooms
(PBCD), they felt strongly that they would in fact teach science in their elementary
classrooms (BI).
Figure 2 identifies the statistically significant and non-significant pathways found
from the regression analyses. Indirect measures of the theory construct (ABD, SND,
PBCD) were correlated to their direct measures (ABI, SNI, PBCI, respectively). The
path coefficients are standardized betas from the regression models (see Table 4).
Statistical pathway findings for pre- and post-survey administration were the same
with the only statistically significant pathway being from the indirect measure of
subjective norm (SNI) to the direct measure of subjective norm (SND) (pre-survey:
F = 125.48, p \ .001 r = .452; post-survey: F = 16.46, p \ .001, r = .301). The
indirect measure of attitude toward behavior (ABI) did not significantly predict
teachers’ direct attitude toward behavior (ABD) in either the pre- or post-survey
(pre-survey: F = .365, p = .546; post-survey: F = .106, p = .745). Similarly, the
indirect measure of subjective norm (PBCI) did not significantly predict teachers’
direct subjective norm (PBCD) in either the pre- or post-survey (pre-survey:
F = 1.33, p = .250; post-survey: F = .650, p = .421).
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey (n = 170)
Scale Mean SD Minimum Maximum
ABI (indirect attitude toward behavior) 13.74 7.10 -13 44
15.50 7.43 0 42
SNI (indirect subjective norm) 15.93 6.35 -10 24
15.91 6.37 -9 24
PBCI (indirect perceived behavioral control) 6.25 9.03 -28 29
8.46 8.86 -12 33
ABD (direct attitude toward behavior) 5.86 2.25 -8 9
5.89 2.50 -7 9
SND (direct subjective norm) 4.21 2.00 -5 6
4.19 1.93 -4 6
PBCD (direct perceived behavioral control) 1.97 1.88 -4 4
1.91 1.81 -4 4
BI (behavioral intent) 5.75 1.17 -6 6
5.46 1.72 -6 6
Post-survey data indicated with italics
122 A. R. Milner et al.
123
RQ2: Do elementary school teachers’ belief-based affects influence their intent toteach science in their own classrooms (both before and after NCLB state sciencetesting requirements)?
Multiple regression results revealed that the behavioral intention (BI) of the
teachers was significantly linked to all three of the direct measures of the theory
constructs combined in the pre- (F = 32.72, p \ .001, r = .415) and post-survey
(F = 25.49, p \ .001, r = .571). As shown in Table 5, subjective norm provided
the strongest influence on teachers’ behavioral intention for both the pre- and post-
survey. This was followed by attitude toward the behavior, and finally perceived
behavioral control, which was the weakest predictor of behavioral intent.
RQ3: Do elementary science teachers believe NCLB required science testing hasimpacted their science teaching? If yes, how?
As far as strengths of the NCLB act, two teachers declared that it has ‘‘good
intentions’’ and is a ‘‘noble idea’’. Another teacher continues, ‘‘This year our fourth
Table 4 Regression analysis for indirect to direct measures for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey
(n = 170)
Direct measure
Indirect measure (predictor) r r2 F B SEB b t
Attitude toward Behavior (ABD) .027 -.001 .365 .009 .014 .027 .604
ABI .025 -.005 .106 .008 .026 .025 .325
Subjective Norm Behavior (SND) .452 .203 125.48 .143 .013 .452 8.81***
SNI .301 .085 16.46 .091 .023 .301 4.06***
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBCD) .052 .001 1.33 .011 .009 .052 1.15
PBCI .062 -002 .650 .013 .016 .062 .806
Post-survey data indicated with italics. ***p \ .001
Table 5 Regression analysis for behavioral intent (BI) for pre- (n = 502) and post-survey (n = 170)
r r2 F
.415 .167 32.72
.571 .313 25.49
Predictors B SEB b t
ABD (direct attitude toward behavior) .109 .020 .232 5.46***
.238 .050 .315 4.73***
SND (direct subjective norm) .137 .022 .258 6.11***
.372 .058 .417 6.37***
PBCD (direct perceived behavioral control) .094 .024 .166 3.94***
.119 .064 .124 1.87
Post-survey data indicated with italics. ***p \ .001
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 123
123
graders were tested in science. That will trickle down to the rest of us, I suppose,
and we will probably get tested down the line. That means we, as a District,
will place more priority in science. Another change for our district is a new
elementary science series that emphasizes both content and hands-on activities.
Our district not only bought the textbooks, but also bought the experiment kits for
each elementary classroom and sets of supplementary science books to be used in
reading groups.’’ Notwithstanding, the content analysis of the categories that
emerged from the phone interviews highlights the many challenges classroom
teachers face in the climate NCLB has created in the elementary classroom in
regard to science.
Many teachers themselves reported positive feelings and attitudes about science,
but this was unrelated to NCLB testing requirements. Some teacher quotes include,
‘‘I love science and hope to pass it on to my students…I love teaching
science…Science is my favorite subject’’. Additionally, 20 teachers reported that
their students had positive feelings and attitudes about science. Still, one teacher
reported that their students did not like science and one teacher reported their
students were bored with science.
RQ4: What influence did NCLB required science testing have on elementaryteacher’s classroom practices?
It is evident through the analysis of the phone interviews that the categories that
emerged show a complex learning environment with which elementary science
teachers deal. Although there were certainly examples of effective science teaching,
the data suggest a number of reasons why effective science teaching is not more
prevalent in the elementary schools. These reasons are underscored in the many
contradictory responses to the interview questions. For example, more than two-
thirds of the teachers interviewed (n = 15) reported using inquiry methods,
experiments, discovery, research and hands-on activities to teach; however, 73%
(n = 16) of these teachers declared that lack of time for quality science is the
biggest challenge NCLB has imposed on elementary classroom teachers. As one
teacher stated, ‘‘NCLB has taken away from all other things school is about;
science, art, music…’’ Thirty-six percent (n = 8) of the teachers reported linking
science education to reading/writing/literacy/spelling in order to satisfy science
requirements while focusing on the NCLB test with one teacher reasoning that,
‘‘…it was easy to fit in with the reading series.’’
Teacher autonomy was reported as limited. Eighty-two percent of the teachers
(n = 18) explained that state or school mandates were the reason they chose to
teach their particular science topics. Only one teacher reported teaching the topic
because it was relevant to the children in her classroom. Additionally, 23% (n = 5)
of the teachers stated that NCLB has taken away from individuality of both the
teachers as well as the students. And, according to one teacher, ‘‘NCLB is a crock of
crap! Diversity is necessary to sustain an environment!’’
The number one goal and objective reported from the teachers was student
comprehension and understanding of the topic being studied (45%; n = 10). Most
teachers reported using multiple instructional materials and methods to teach. One
teacher reported using, ‘‘multiple representations of info for all learning types.’’
124 A. R. Milner et al.
123
Half of the teachers interviewed (n = 11) said they used technology and videos to
teach science. Half (n = 11) also reported using textbooks, trade books, and
workbooks to teach. Nearly two-thirds of the teachers (64%; n = 14) reported their
students engaged in hands-on activities and experiments while only one teacher
reported her students worked independently. Conversely, one teacher reported using
lecture and another teacher reported using demonstrations to teach. Most teachers
reported using multiple assessment strategies ranging from simple question and
answer sessions, performance assessments, and tests and quizzes. Related to student
comprehension, understanding, and assessment, 73% (n = 16) teachers reported
that their students met the learning objectives to some extent. Nonetheless, 18%
(n = 4) teachers reported that student comprehension of abstract concepts was their
biggest challenge.
From the open ended questionnaire, teachers reported at the time of the pretest,
6% (n = 28/451) believed that NCLB resulted in there being less emphasis on
science while 29% (n = 133/451) believed that it led to there being more
emphasis on science. At the posttest, the results show that 33% (n = 54/163) felt
NCLB resulted in less emphasis on science and only 2% (n = 4/163) who felt that
there was more emphasis on science (see Table 6). The responses teachers offered
at each time period indicate a different impact of NCLB on science instruction.
Pre-survey data implied there was more emphasis on science following the
implementation of NCLB. This is contradictory to the post-survey data, which
showed respondents believed less time and emphasis was directed toward this
subject.
Since the data from the pre and post surveys contradict one another, it may be
that at the time of this study, the teachers did not have a full understanding of NCLB
and its impact on their lives. For example, a respondent from Massachusetts said
Table 6 Open-ended
questionnaire responses about
NCLB’s impact on science
teaching in the classroom for
pre- (n = 451) and post-survey
(n = 163)
Post-survey data indicated with
italics
Theme reported Percentage (frequency)
No impact 33% (n = 151)
34% (n = 56)
Have no idea 4% (n = 19)
.06% (n = 1)
Less emphasis on science 6% (n = 28)
33% (n = 28)
More pressure on teacher and student 3% (n = 15)
5% (n = 8)
More emphasis on testing 10% (n = 43)
5% (n = 8)
More emphasis on science 29% (n = 133)
2% (n = 4)
More time and resources needed 5% (n = 22)
1% (n = 2)
Little impact 3% (n = 14)
1% (n = 2)
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 125
123
NCLB had negatively affected the science curriculum at that school, as they were
explicitly told not to teach science. In Illinois, a teacher commented, ‘‘Yes we do
spend a lot of time working with our low [performing] kids, and not so much with
science’’. An explanation for this may be reflected in the statement from a teacher in
Utah, ‘‘[The] more emphasis on language arts and math has decreased science.
Since [science] is not assessed, it gets pushed to the back’’. There are, however,
exceptions to this in certain cases. Teachers who teach in private schools, which are
not subject to the NCLB testing requirements, responded that NCLB has not had an
effect on the way their school taught science. Teachers in states such as Florida and
Pennsylvania where there is a state-mandated science test explained that there was
more emphasis on science, since there was pressure on the students to pass the
science portion of the test. The Florida teachers point out that, ‘‘there is much more
emphasis on Science due to the 5th grade Science FCAT test that affects our school
grade’’ and ‘‘I think the Florida State Assessment Tests starting in 5th grade has had
an impact’’. The Pennsylvania teachers echo this as well. ‘‘I absolutely believe this.
Before science was part of our state assessment, we were told not to spend more
than an hour a week on science or history’’.
Discussion and Implications
Research Methods
While Ajzen and Madden’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (1986) is well
established and widely used in exploring human beliefs and their relation to
behavior, this study shows that the theory did not entirely hold up when
investigating teachers’ beliefs about teaching science in their classrooms. Specif-
ically, the direct perceived behavioral control (PBCD) construct had very low
internal consistency, and half of the theorized paths were not highly correlated. This
implies that caution must be used when interpreting the quantitative results from the
PBCD construct. Thus, this study supports the notion that the Theory of Planned
Behavior needs further examination when being used to explore teacher beliefs
about teaching science. However, the quantitative results were only one component
of this study. Qualitative results from open-ended questions on the questionnaire
and interviews highly supported the quantitative data regardless of the quantitative
model inconsistencies. Therefore, this study supports the use of mixed-methods
research in educational research since the qualitative data substantiated the
conclusions drawn from the quantitative data even with the somewhat flawed
quantitative theory.
K-12 Science Teaching
This study was designed to explore the impact of No Child Left Behind policy on
teachers’ beliefs and enacted science teaching practice. The first research question
dealt with elementary science teachers’ belief-based affects (before and after NCLB
126 A. R. Milner et al.
123
science testing requirement) concerning their science teaching. In general,
elementary teachers saw the benefit of making science relevant to their students
and meeting state and national standards, but there were many perceived
impediments to teaching science including those commonly reported in educational
literature including lack of time, resources, and materials as well as the lack of
professional development (Beck et al. 2000; DeSouza and Czerniak 2003; Haney
et al. 2002, 2003).
Interestingly, we found that teachers’ beliefs were more influenced by their
administration and peer group than they were by federally mandated policy.
Teachers indicated that time and resources were barriers but the opinions of others
and school mandates were the most closely aligned to their emerging practice.
These findings are similar to previous studies related to science reform projects in
that teacher beliefs are the key to whether or not instructional practices will be
changed and how they will be implemented and sustained (Anderson 2002; Battista
1994; Blumenfeld et al. 1994; Borko and Shavelson 1990; Fullan 2001; Loucks-
Horsley and Matsumoto 1999).
Through this study we found evidence that highlights a continued need to address
teacher beliefs regarding the teaching of science. Teacher beliefs are often not the
primary focus of professional development programs—which often target peda-
gogical content knowledge. Gess-Newsome (2003) argued that professional
development programs have rarely resulted in change due to lack of focus on
‘‘fundamental and complex beliefs about what it means to teach science’’ (p. 10). In-
service, as well as pre-service science teacher programs should ground their
experiences in a purposeful focus on existing beliefs of current and future teachers.
A more holistic program including the larger picture of the link between science
performance nationally and our future competitiveness in the global arena could
accomplish this. Once teachers have a more global perspective on the importance of
science in elementary grades, then emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring
elementary teachers have the educational preparation, resources, time, and support
to teach science effectively.
The second research question explored whether elementary school teachers’
belief-based affects influenced their intent to teach science in their own classrooms
(both before and after NCLB state science testing requirements). All of the three
constructs in the Ajzen and Fishbein Theory of Planned Behavior (1980) were
significant in predicting intention to teach science at the elementary level before
NCLB, but one variable (Perceived Behavioral Control) was not predictive of
intention to teach science after NCLB. This suggests that it is important for
elementary teachers to have a positive attitude about teaching science, but they also
need to be supported by the people who interface with schools, and they need to
have the time and resources to teach science so they believe they have the personal
ability and control to teach science.
The third and fourth research questions examined elementary science teachers’
beliefs as to whether the NCLB required science testing has impacted their science
teaching and the impact of NCLB on their teaching. We found that many teachers
believed that NCLB resulted in less science being taught at the elementary level.
This supports the findings of Griffith and Scharmann (2008) and Pratt (2007) who
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 127
123
found that elementary teachers reported a reduction in science teaching as a result of
NCLB. Teachers in our study reported decreasing time spent on science to help
children (oftentimes low performing children) on reading and mathematics. This
belief conflicts with research illustrating that science instruction at the elementary
level raises performance in mathematics and reading, even with at-risk students
(Klentschy 2006).
Some of our teachers reported that they were told by an administrator not to teach
science. Griffith and Scharmann (2008) also reported that a school administrator had
instructed teachers to reduce time teaching science in order to teach mathematics
and reading. Several studies have revealed the negative consequences of account-
ability on the teaching of science through inquiry (Anderson 1996, 2002; Johnson
2006, 2007a). ‘‘Principal support, coupled with school culture that both values
science as a core subject and provides an overall culture to support reform, is all too
rare,’’ (p. 11) and this lack of support has obvious implications on teachers of
science, according to Berns and Swanson (2000). Recently, Johnson (2006) found
that cultural barriers including teacher beliefs and political barriers including
perceived administrative support were the most influential on science teacher
practice. Follow-up interviews in our study gleaned some insight into teacher beliefs
that revealed state and local leaders may have not embraced the significance of the
reform mandates based upon the fact that NCLB uses only reading and mathematics
scores to determine individual schools adequate yearly progress (AYP).
Pratt (2007) reported that the pressure of the NCLB law has had the effect of
squeezing science out of the elementary school curriculum, and ‘‘many teachers
assume that children can ‘catch up’ on science when they reach middle school and
high school.’’ However, the National Science Education Standards (NAP 1996),
AAAS Benchmarks (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989), and more recently the work
focused on elementary science (Duschl et al. 2007; Michaels et al. 2008) illustrate
the complex nature of learning starting with young children. Prior knowledge is the
foundation for new learning, and students learn by progressing through increasing
complex concepts and skills. If students are not taught science at the elementary
level, the chances of doing well in later grades are low because they will have failed
to learn basic skills and we will have lost the chance to build interest in science
when children are young (Pratt 2007). The lack of quality science instruction at the
elementary level has resulted in a knowledge gap so large that it is often not
remedied through further years of schooling (Goldston 2005). Stakeholders in
science education realize that science instruction in elementary grades is a critical
issue that must be addressed (Keeley 2009; NSTA 2002). Findings from our study
indicate that until state and local leaders make science learning a priority at all grade
levels, this problem will continue to persist.
Finally, policy makers need to close the loop and take all core subjects into
consideration when determining annual school progress. There is a disconnect
between the message that NCLB intended and what is being delivered in the minds
of classroom teachers and school administrators. Testing without inclusion in AYP
has resulted in testing for the sake of testing, and the mistaken belief that science
instruction is not as important as mathematics or reading. Pratt (2007) states:
128 A. R. Milner et al.
123
The reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law could provide an
opportunity to raise elementary science to a more prominent place in the
curriculum. The current law calls, in fact, for the implementation this school
year of testing in science at three levels (elementary, middle, and high school).
Yet, the results of these tests need not be factored into the goals for making
‘‘adequate yearly progress.’’ The Bush administration’s recommendations for
the reauthorization of the law call for all students to be proficient in science …but not until 2019–20. Can we wait that long?
Until there are consequences for school performance in science, the teaching of
elementary science will continue to be minimized further eroding our nation’s goals
for improved STEM education, advanced innovation, and improved economic
prosperity.
Figure 3 depicts how we might think about the relationships among the
implications from this study (policy, administrative support in K-12 schools, teacher
education, teacher beliefs and attitudes, and student learning). If the ultimate goal in
our K-12 schools is to impact student learning, there are layers that filter the
probability that student learning will occur in elementary science. Federal policy
must make elementary science important and it must ‘‘count’’ in the minds of school
administrators (i.e., science should be taught and teachers need the proper
curriculum, resources and time to teach it). Teacher education programs must
prepare elementary teachers to teach science effectively, and elementary teachers’
beliefs should be considered as an important variable which impacts whether
science is taught in elementary schools. Only when all of the outer elements in this
figure are inline and working for the same purpose can we really begin to have an
impact on student learning of science.
Fig. 3 Relationship between policy, teacher education, beliefs, and student learning
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 129
123
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman
(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and
perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.
Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill,
Irwin.
America 2000. (1991). An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Vol. 1: Findings and conclusions. Studies of
educational reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397535).
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal ofScience Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Teaching the theory of evolution in social, intellectual, and pedagogical context.
Science Education, 91, 664–667.
Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the
standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s local systemic change through
teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.
Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement of mathematics education. Phi DeltaKappan, 75(2), 462–470.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the
implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4),
323–343.
Berns, B. B., & Swanson, J. (2000, April). Middle school science: Working in a confused context. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444944).
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned. How collaboration
helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 94(5), 539–551.
Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 311–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Carnegie Foundation. (2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and scienceeducation for citizenship and the global economy. New York: Institute for Advanced Study.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Raising above the gathering storm:Energizing and empowering America for brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.
Crawley, F. E. (1990). Intentions of science teachers to use investigative teaching methods: A test of the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 685–697.
Crawley, F. E., & Koballa, T. R. (1992, March). Attitude/Behavior behavior change in science education:Part I—Models models and methods. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Crawley, F. E., & Salyer, B. A. (1995). Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying curriculum
reform in Texas. Science Education, 79(6), 611–635.
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
130 A. R. Milner et al.
123
DeSouza, J. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Study of science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about
collaborative reflective practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1), 1–31.
Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting adjustments.
Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215–227.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning andteaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Fetters, M. K., Czerniak, C. M., Fish, L., & Shawberry, J. (2002). Confronting, challenging, and changing
teachers’ beliefs: Implications from a local systemic change professional development program.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 101–130.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Friedman, I. A. (2003). Self-efficacy and burnout in teaching: the importance of interpersonal-relations
efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 191–215.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2003, April). Implications of the definitions of knowledge and beliefs on research andpractice in science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Goldston, D. (2005). Elementary science: Left behind? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2),
185–187.
Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science
education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions regarding the
implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,
971–993.
Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Constructivist beliefs about the science classroom
learning environment: Perspectives from teachers, administrators, parents, community members,
and students. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 336–377.
Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and
actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171–187.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers teachers
encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 1–12.
Johnson, C. C. (2007a). Effective science teaching, professional development and no child left behind:
Barriers, dilemmas, and reality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 133–136.
Johnson, C. C. (2007b). Whole school collaborative professional development and science teacher
change: Signs of success. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 629–662.
Johnson, C. C. (2009). An examination of effective practice: moving toward elimination of achievement
gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 287–306.
Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. (2007). A study of sustained, whole-school, professional
development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,
775–786.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65–90.
Keeley, P. (2009). Elementary science education in the K-12 system. NSTA Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=55954.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2000). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential
research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.
Klentschy, M. (2006, April). Student achievement through active science learning. Paper presented at the
National Science Teachers Association annual convention, Anaheim, CA.
Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E. (1992). Attitude/Behavior change in science education: Part II—Results
of an ongoing research agenda. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of
mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–271.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science
teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
Mahoney, J. L., & Zigler, E. F. (2006). Translating science to policy under the no child left behind act of
2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21st century community learning center. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 282–294.
Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice 131
123
Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’
beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 7, 575–596.
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities,
challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–466.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro
realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.
Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research towork in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten years on.
Educational Research, 49, 415–430.
National Academy Press. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2002). NSTA position statement: Elementary school science.
Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/
about/positions/elementary.aspx.
Neil, M. (2003). NCLB: Don’t mourn, organize! Rethinking Schools Online, 18(1). Retrieved from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_01/nclb181.shtml.
Obama for America. (2009). The Obama-Biden plan. Retrieved from http://www.barackobama.com/
pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Reviewof Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Panijpan, B., Ruenwongsa, P., & Sriwattanarothai, N. (2008). Problems encountered in teaching/learning
integrated photosynthesis: A case of ineffective pedagogical practice. Bioscience Education, 12(3).
Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol12/beej-12-3.aspx.
Perry, C. M. (1990, April). A pilot study of preservice and inservice teachers’ beliefs about effectiveteaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston, MA.
Pratt, H. (2007). Science education’s ‘overlooked ingredient’: Why the path to global competitivenessbegins in elementary school. Retrieved from http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_
10_29_pratt.htm.
Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989) American Association for the Advancement of Science. In Sciencefor all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitativeand qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). NCLB and Other Elementary/Secondary Policy Documents.Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb.
Weiss, I. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey on science, mathematics, and social studies.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research
Triangle Institute.
Weiss, I. (1987). 1985–86 National survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Weiss, I., & Place, C. (1978). Proceedings from AERA 1978: 1977 survey of science, mathematics andsocial studies education: Implications for teacher education. Toronto, Canada.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zehr, M. A. (2009). Study finds NCLB lifted math scores, but not reading. Education Week, 29(13), 8–9.
132 A. R. Milner et al.
123
top related